IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Takis , Eleni & Elpida Demopoulos
Lordos & A. Lordou Anastasiadou
Eliadou & 3 Others
Thoma Kilara Sotiriou & Thoma Kilara Moushoutta
Charalambou Onoufriou & 3 Others
Chrysostomou (see Savvopoulou)
ORAL ADDRESS OF DR. CHRISTOS CLERIDES
The IPC and Bizonality
Mr. President , Members of the Court,
1.Ownership in the occupied part of Cyprus in accordance with the last relevant available statistics of the Republic of Cyprus in 1964 is as follows:
1.Greek Cypriot 58.2%
2.Turkish Cypriot 16.2%
See Table in page 175 of Claire Palley’s Treatise: An International Relations Debacle, Oxford 2005.
2.(a) Section 3 of the “Law” under discussion setting up the IPC States that its object is to implement the concept of “BIZONALITY” and protect the rights of ownership and use of Turkish Cypriot people and the “TRNC”.
(b) Their “rights of ownership” or “use” “arise” of course as you know from the illegal confiscation of all Greek Cypriot ownership under “Article 159” of the “TRNC” Constitution.
(c) The object of this Law is not stated to be restitution to Greek Cypriots of their illegally confiscated property. Quite the opposite.
3.The conditions laid down in Section 8 (1), (2) (a) (b), (3) for “restitution” are so onerous , so vague at times, that it becomes obvious that restitution is an illusion. It is provided for in rare cases only and this after the settlement of the Cyprus Problem. This is so because the Object of the Law is that stated in Section 3 i.e. to achieve BIZONALITY, meaning property cleansing.
4.The whole “raison d’être” of this Commission is to reverse Greek Cypriot majority ownership of 56% to a minority.
5.The “Immovable Property Commission” is a special purpose vehicle intended to achieve just this.
6.That this is so is admitted expressly or impliedly by public statements of Turkish Cypriot Officials, such as those of the Chairperson of the IPC, Mrs. Sumer Erkmen , Appendix 9 in Thoma Kilara Memorial, 29/09/2008.
7.Another such statement comes from the so called “Foreign Minister” Denktas that: “The reasoning of the draft law is the exchange and compensation and not the return of property….there is nothing which creates a situation which endangers the Bi-zonality”, see Applicants Memorial, 2 Oct. 2009, Appendix D.
8.In addition Mr. Erk, the special representative of the Turkish Cypriot Leader Talat in Yeni Duzen, 02/02/2009, Appendix 9, page 112 of the Cyprus Memorial , Vol. 1, Feb. 2009 put it bluntly :
“the majority in the pattern of the properties will belong to the Turkish Cypriots…this is bizonality”.
“If bizonality is going to be our first principle and this is accepted … then the majority of the immovable properties in our own area will belong to (the T/C) … we will return property … but a significant part of the Greek Cypriot properties will pass to the ownership of Turkish Cypriots”.
9.That is why in accordance with the statistics relating to the practice of the IPC given by Turkey, see Appendix 20 of the Turkish Memorial 2.10.2009, last page, only a small proportion of property belonging to G/C was ordered to be “returned” after solution of the Cyprus problem of course.
10. Finally in the so called “Constitutional Court” judgment of the TRNC (Annex 4 of Turkish Memorial 2.10.2009) pages 32, 33, 34, 35 it is admitted that “the Commission is obliged to evaluate applications … in compliance with the criteria … stipulated in the purpose of the Law in Article 3” i.e. BIZONALITY as above interpreted and applied by the Turkish OFFICIALS.
11.Mr. President, Members of the Court,
The IPC is not a legitimate domestic effective remedy for purposes of the Convention. It is an instrument of Racial Discrimination contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of the First Protocol. The IPC is at loggerheads with the Convention. Its expressed purpose is to impose BIZONALITY i.e. ethnic property cleansing and to safeguard the rights of the so called ownership and use of the TRNC and Turkish Cypriots at the expense of the G/C to whom the properties belong.
Dr. Christos Clerides